Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Surrey—Newton is right. The time that I spent has been educational for me.

I grew up in Montreal. I am a city boy. Worms and fish and hooks are not my thing, but I had to learn a lot about fish. I had to learn about the community that I live in, and I was blessed to have people who were ready to show me.

I cannot tell members how many times they kept telling me, “My God, somebody is listening to us. Somebody is paying attention. Somebody is actually bringing us to the table and having these conversations.” To me, it meant I was going in the right direction.

What we have before us is just another extension of all the consultations we had, and not only in my riding; the committee also heard from over 80 witnesses and reviewed over 150 submissions. There were 14 months of consultations. They are the reason we are doing this. They help guide us to where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House. It is late in the evening, but it is good to see members of the House here to debate this very important issue. I am delighted that I am following the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, because I was in his wonderful community just last week. He may have been aware of that.

I had a wonderful session with the local chamber of commerce, as well as other constituents of his. Funnily enough, this bill never came up. Others topics came up, like this decision by the Liberals to buy a pipeline. A lot of his constituents were very concerned about the financial cost of that decision. A lot of other issues about economic growth and opportunity came up. The issue of affordability of housing came up and how the Liberal government was not addressing it. Therefore, I commend him for his constituents, but they did not talk about the same issues the hon. member has talked about this evening.

I come from Parry Sound—Muskoka. Navigable waters is an important issue in my riding as it is in many other ridings in the country. I have 8,000 lakes in my riding, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, when you drive through it, at the speed limit, on your way to your constituency. However, these issues are important. I think we can all agree in the House that we want sustainable waterways that can be used for generations to come, that we can all enjoy, that are available to citizens.

The issue is this: Is the bill helping us get to where we want to get to? We have heard a lot from the Liberal members about how wonderful the bill is, how it will make a difference. Let us look at some of the actual provisions of the bill and what they would do. When we do that, I think we will come away with a very different impression about how the rhetoric of the bill is one thing, but the actual impact of the bill is something very different.

I draw attention to the fact that the bill is riddled with ministerial exemptions that will delay development of Canada's natural resources, which has an impact on jobs and opportunity and the ability of our society to pay for the sustainability of our waterways and other environmental goals that we have. There is an extension of ministerial authority over the process. I am sure there have been comments on that at committee and at other stages of the debate of the bill.

Some environmental lawyers have opined that the bill would do nothing to enhance the environmental protections. Therefore, that is a significant flaw. That is not just a minor amendment issue. It goes to the heart, to the pith and substance, as we used to say, of the bill. That in itself is a reason for a second thought on it. When Governor in Council and ministerial exemptions can be exercised, this slows down approvals.

I have heard the hon. members on the other side say that we should not worry, that everything will be fine, that they will get approvals through, that they will protect the environment. However, that is not the way it works when we look at the legislation. The ability of the Governor in Council—that is to say the cabinet, the executive council of the government—to slow down the process is very clear.

The addition of the planning process and the associated timelines means that the overall review process is actually longer than what it was under the prior legislation. It will take longer to get a decision. Things will be slower. Red tape will be strangling. That is not good. That certainly is not good for the economy. It actually goes against the idea that we, as a civil society, have the means by which we can come to a negotiated solution to protect our waterways. The government always says it wants economic growth and development. This is a case where it is making it tougher to get the economic growth and development it claims it wants.

This is an issue. With the addition of a joint panel requirement, the end result will be more panels than before. More projects will have longer timelines.

We on this side of the House, in the Conservative Party, do not see an appropriate and sage balance between environmental protection and economic growth. That is the mantra of the government, but when we look at the bill, we are not getting that proper balance. We are in a competitive situation. We know that other jurisdictions are not waiting for Canada to get its act together. They are trying to be more competitive. They are trying to lower taxes and regulation for their citizens to increase economic growth and opportunity, particularly for young people, but this bill is going 180° in the opposite direction.

I know that the government is committed to investing over $1 billion over five years for the new Canadian energy regulator, but, again, we have not heard from government members on how this money will be spent. Where are the details for us, as legislators, to understand how that money will be spent to actually help the new Canadian energy regulator? As I have said, we are quite worried that this would decrease Canadian economic competitiveness without increasing environmental protection. That is the key problem I find with this piece of legislation.

We know that it is part of our responsibilities as members of Parliament to seek out sound economic and environmental policies and to make sure that one is not at the expense of the other. This does not have to be a zero-sum game. On this side of the House, we understand that increased prosperity does lead to better environmental outcomes.

In 2016, Canada's natural resources sector accounted for 16% of economic activity here in Canada and 38% of our non-residential capital investment, but what will kill that is regulatory uncertainty, red tape. That is what has been happening, to an exponential degree, over the last couple of years, to such an extent that Canadian energy investment has declined in the past two years more than in any other two-year period in the last 70 years. I think another hon. member mentioned an elephant in the room. This is the elephant in the room, and this is why this bill is not a solution to Canada's problems.

We urge the government to champion Canadian energy projects and provide regulatory certainty, predictability, and clarity to ensure the viability of these major projects. There are lots of assurances and rhetoric that go with this bill, but we have no real assurance that future projects of national and, indeed, local significance can and would proceed. It does build, unfortunately, on the growing Liberal record of increasing red tape and over-regulation.

On this side of the House, Canada's Conservatives will continue to stand against onerous regulations that destroy jobs, destroy economic growth, and lower our global competitiveness. We will continue to stand for the taxpayer, for the citizen, for the average person who seeks a better life in this country, and for growth and opportunity in Canada, because that is the solution to any environmental challenges. That is the solution for economic growth in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for coming to my riding. It is too bad he did not invite me over. We could have had a good conversation. I feel the need to mention that we are here talking about the navigable waters act, for instance, not other issues that the member may have asked questions about.

I keep hearing, time and time again, “less regulation”, but where is the climate change piece that is missing from less regulation? Where is the piece that says we have to be able to solve the problem of climate change? Less regulation opens the door to what we have had: the destruction of our coastal areas, fish passages, and fish habitats. That is the result of less regulation.

I would like to know how the member can come to terms with less regulation while protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. I am not diminishing the question in the least, but it is a bit of a red herring. In no part of my speech did I say “no regulation” and in no part of my remarks did I say “under-regulation”. Of course, we have to protect our natural environment. That is part of our duty as citizens of this great country, and of the planet.

However, let me get back to my point. This bill promises to do something that will not happen. Liberals say that we can protect the environment and increase economic growth, and yet this bill will make it tougher, and it will take longer to get legitimate projects through the system. It is because of ministerial discretion, not because of science or some highfalutin principle.

It will be the cabinet that will be able to slow things down. That is a major point of contention in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member said, because it gets repeated so often in this place, that somehow the current Liberal government has hurt investment in the energy sector.

That is not the case. We have to look globally, and what we find is that investors are fleeing fossil fuel investments. They are divesting. We can look at the many speeches by Mark Carney, who used to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada and is now the Governor of the Bank of England, where he says there is a carbon bubble, and smart companies want to avoid having stranded assets in the oil sands.

That is why ConocoPhillips has left; that is why Shell left; that is why Statoil left; that is why Total left. At the height of the oil sands, it amounted to 2% of our GDP. Large multinationals are leaving because they are investing in renewable energy, because that is where the profits are.

Mr. Speaker, I do concede that there has been some investment in renewable energy, and that is, of course, a good thing. Certainly, if business leaders see that as a growth area, far be it for me to second guess that.

However, the fact of the matter is that there has been a lot of uncertainty in the Canadian marketplace, which has seen a disproportionate number of companies fleeing it because of the uncertainty and red tape over the last couple of years. That point is undeniable. When we see a 70% drop in a two-year period of that kind of investment in Canada, that is not a worldwide trend. There is no worldwide 70% drop.

It is clear that it is the actions of the current government and its policies, of its saying one thing and doing something very different, that have caused this crisis in natural resources development. It can be a sustainable development, but not when the government puts so many onerous preconditions on this kind of development.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about some of the deficiencies of the bill. Then I would like to talk a bit more about a general pattern of behaviour that the bill fits into, which is problematic in and of itself.

With respect to the bill, Canadians were upset with the previous government and its approach to environmental assessment, if we can call it that. The previous government really gutted the existing environmental assessment process. The key feature of that gutting in my opinion and the opinion of many Canadians across the country was that the Harper government essentially made the final approval of large natural resource projects a political decision at the cabinet table. It became a decision that was not inherently tied to evidence, to science, to predictable impacts with respect to the effect of these projects on the climate. It was not tied to the rights of indigenous peoples to have a say over what happens on their own land. It was simply a political decision to be taken by cabinet. Therefore, one would think that a party that ran against the Harper Conservatives, in part because the latter had gutted environmental assessments and the Liberals committed to Canadians in the election that they would fix that, would have to address the issue of that approval becoming essentially just a prerogative of the government to make according to its own reasons.

The problem with Bill C-69 is that after waiting well over two years for the government to present its fix to the Harper approach to approving these projects, the bill does not in fact do that. It maintains the absolute prerogative of the government to plow ahead, irrespective of the facts, the science on a particular project, or the views of many first nations that may be affected by a particular project. To me, that is a clear and obvious deficiency in the legislation. It does not meet the commitment the Liberals made in the last election to Canadians who are really concerned about this issue. One of the clearest and most obvious things those Canadians wanted was to try to depoliticize the approval process for many of these projects and to have decisions based on science and evidence. It was not to allow the government a choice as to whether or not to go along with the science and the evidence, but to bake it into the process so that the government would not have a choice other than make decisions based on that evidence, or to have an independent body make that decision based on that evidence and science. That is a clear deficiency with the bill, and one that is very disappointing.

With regard to the rights of indigenous people being respected in the approval of these kinds of projects, my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, presented a number of amendments that would not have put that commitment in the preamble alone, which is what the government ultimately decided to do. The government's decision to put that commitment in the preamble gives us a measure of how strong its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples really is, because the preamble is non-binding. That, of course, is the kind of commitment that Liberals seem to prefer, the non-binding ones. That was evidenced in their rejection of a number of amendments that would have given UNDRIP real force and effect in the environmental review process. Putting that commitment in the preamble does not give UNDRIP real effect. They are nice words, but they do not get the job done when we have a government that is not interested in respecting the rights of indigenous people. What indigenous people needed was something with the force of law that they could take to court when the government trampled on their rights. The Liberals opted not to do that, and it really does not do it a service to say that it was a missed opportunity.

It is wrong for them not to have done that. It is wrong in principle, but it is also wrong in light of the commitment they just made in voting in support of Bill C-262 last week, which is essentially all about trying to implement UNDRIP within Canadian law. It is wrong, according to the claims of the Prime Minister, who often says that the nation-to-nation relationship is one of the most important relationships.

In light of all those things, it was clearly wrong for the government to do that.

It is part of a theme on a number of files within the government, where the attitude is that we should just trust the government. The government admits there is a lot of discretion, but it says discretion allows it to do the right thing, and it wants to do the right thing. It does not think it has to put the right thing in law or require itself to do the right thing, because it really wants to do it, so we should just take its word for it. That is what is happening with Bill C-69. That is what it means to maintain ministerial prerogative to decide on a project regardless of the evidence.

We heard the minister say something to that effect in the debate on time allocation earlier, when she said that the government cares about science and evidence and therefore it does not need to put a requirement in the law to make decisions based on science and evidence. She said that if we wait and look at the decisions the government makes, we will see, in hindsight, that they were based on science and evidence.

I do not think that this is what Canadians were asking for when they elected a government that said it was going to create a new process based on science and evidence. It is a bad way of making law. It means that a future government that comes in will not be required to do that, just as the current government is not.

Frankly, I do not think the Liberals are really committed, in many cases, to evidence-based decision-making. They would not have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for far more than it is worth if they were actually serious about making information-based decisions. We could go down that road, but even if we do not, it is very clear that if one's commitment is to build a good process, this process should not rely on the goodwill of the government of the day. It should be a process that requires the government of the day to do the right thing, notwithstanding who is in power. This bill obviously fails that test.

We saw something similar with Bill C-49 with respect to voice and video recording devices in locomotives. The government said that we need not worry because it has no interest in invading the privacy rights of workers, and that it would look after it, but without putting it into law; it would just put it in regulations. The government asked us, when voting on the legislation, to trust that it would do the right thing later in regulation.

Never mind the fact that even if the current government does the right thing, and we have not seen that yet, it is still up to some future government to simply change the regulations by order in council without coming to Parliament, because it is not in the law. I do not think the government has done any great favour to workers in that industry by setting up a law that could be so easily abused.

We have seen a similar thing from the government when it comes to approving funding for all its new budget initiatives for 2018-19. It is asking for approval of over $7 billion up front. Department officials and ministers have been very clear in committee that they do not actually have a plan for the money yet. They do not know what they are going to do with that money yet. They have not designed the program, and it has not been to the Treasury Board. They do not know how many people they are going to hire. They do not know whether they will build a building, rent an office, or use existing space. They do not know if they will be travelling across the country. The government does not know what it is going to be spending the money on, but its answer is clear: We should just trust it that things are going to work out and that everything will be okay.

Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on a number of issues, whether it be fiscal responsibility, or being open and accountable, or the very important issues that Bill C-69 is at least nominally meant to address. I have given some indication that I am not convinced it actually addresses those issues.

Regardless of the issue, when Canadians are looking for leadership, they are looking for legislation that holds the government to account. If the government of the day is sincere in giving its word, it should not mind being held to a higher standard, allowing Canadians to test that in court if they have to. Hopefully it will not come to that and the government will keep its word, which remains to be seen.

Canadians deserve to have the tools to hold the government to its word. They also deserve to have future governments bound by those things. At the very least, if a future government wants to change that, it should have to come to Parliament to make the case to Canada's elected representatives, instead of being able to do it fly-by-night through regulation. That is the problem with Bill C-69.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote about Bill C-69 from the National Post. It reads:

Bill C-69 outlines a number of factors that the minister must consider before approving a project including sustainability and impacts on indigenous groups and on Canada's ability to meet its climate change commitments. That's an improvement over the existing system where the government's reasons for project approvals are often 'mysterious' according to Jamie Mean, spokesperson for Mining Watch Canada.

I would just like the member's comments on that quote. Could he say whether or not he feels this quote reflects the fact that we have a bill that is an improvement on the existing process brought in by the Conservatives?

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that notwithstanding any virtues of the process proposed in Bill C-69, if the minister is the one who will decide whether the process will be applied to a project or not, because the process itself is not mandatory, and if at the end of it the minister is able to simply ignore the outcomes of the process, then no, we would not have a process that is fundamentally better than the one the Harper government had, because the government could ignore it at will.

The major problem with the Harper process as far as I am concerned is that at the end of the day, the government, for whatever reason, could simply ignore the science and the evidence. That fundamentally has not changed.

Incidentally, members looking to the National Post to validate whether or not their policies are progressive are probably barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis was quoting the National Post in reference to Jamie Mean of Mining Watch Canada, who is not the usual go-to sources for the National Post.

I happen to be struggling with this legislation because it is, without question, marginally better than Bill C-38 in 2012. The Liberals promised in their platform to restore what we had been in place before, that it would restore public trust and repair the damage done when the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in by Brian Mulroney was repealed by Bill C-38. This has not been restored. This has not been repaired. This has largely been entrenched.

Does my friend from Elmwood—Transcona have any theories as to why the Liberal government spent over $1 million on a National Energy Board expert panel and over $1 million on a separate environmental assessment expert panel that held hearings across the country? The expert panel on EA by the way went to 21 cities, heard from over 1,000 witnesses, produced a terrific report, and its recommendations were thrown under the proverbial bus.

What on earth was going on? I really cannot answer the question, but maybe my friend from Elmwood—Transcona could speculate.

Mr. Speaker, it would be speculation indeed, because it does not seem to make a lot of sense to have commissioned that work, have it done, and then largely ignore it.

We saw something similar with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. There was a budget for that committee too. It did a lot of travel, heard from a number of witnesses, and produced a really great report. Everybody put a bit of water in their wine to clear the path for the government to move forward and make good on its election commitment. Without really even taking time to consider that report, the government decided to throw it in the wastepaper bin. It is a theme, but the motivation behind that theme is not exactly clear.

On the issue of electoral reform, by way of analogy to Bill C-69, one could imagine the government creating a really good proportional representation voting system that actually satisfied Canadians who voted for change, but putting in a caveat in the bill that the government of the day could decide in advance of an election whether it would use that process or the old process. I do not think anybody would say that made sense. Right?

Effectively, the ministerial discretion to decide whether to apply this framework to a project and then to ignore it afterwards would be a further caveat. We would be saying, “If we had the election and we do not like the results, we will actually just rescind it and then will redo the election under the old process”. Nobody would think that was a good idea and effectively that is what is happening here.

There may be virtues in the change to the process, but the real problem is whether the process will be applied and whether it has to be respected once it is seen through.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Environment, or the minister responsible for natural resources, we hear time and time again that we need to recognize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and it needs to be repeated. If we say it enough, maybe the Conservatives and the NDP will begin to understand that there is a great deal of merit in that idea.

Canadians understand that idea. If the Conservatives and the New Democrats would listen to what Canadians have to say about the issue, they would find that they are in fact offside on what I believe is very important legislation.

It is interesting that it appears that both opposition parties are going to vote against the legislation. I am not 100% sure about the New Democrats, but I believe they are going to be voting against it too, and possibly the Green Party will be voting against it as well.

They have different reasons. The Conservatives are saying that we are putting in too much regulation and are being too hard on free enterprise. My New Democratic friends are on the other end. They are saying that we need to put in more regulation and more restrictions.

The reality is that if the NDP cannot get onside or understand the true national interest with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, then it is very clear that they do not support pipelines, because if they cannot support this one, then they cannot support any pipeline, as far as I am concerned. I suspect that after listening to what the NDP has to say, that is the conclusion that a vast majority of Canadians would reach.

Then we have my Conservative friends, who are on the other end. They are great in opposition, far better in opposition than they ever were in government. I can tell members that much. If I look at what the Conservatives are saying, I see that at first they were saying that the Liberal government was not doing enough and that they wanted to see a pipeline, even though for 10 years they could not build an inch of pipeline to tidewater.

The Conservatives can heckle whatever they want. The reality is that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewater. They failed. There were 10 years of failure on that front. What they asked for was to see a pipeline built, because they could not do it.

Now we have a government that is actually making it happen. One would think the Conservatives would be happy to see that, but no. Now they are asking why the government is buying a pipeline. Do I need to remind them that it was Harper who bought automobile shares to protect an industry? Imagine the thousands of jobs that were saved because of the Harper decision to invest in the automobile industry. That money was ultimately returned. Need I remind them they cashed out a billion dollars on it in the last budget they presented? Why are they saying no to Alberta, and to Canada as a whole? That is the challenge I put to my Conservative friends, because it just does not make any sense.

What does Bill C-69 do? It protects our environment, fish, and waterways. This is good stuff. We are re-establishing public confidence in the environment and in economic development because they can go hand in hand. We are also respecting indigenous rights.

If I go back to my New Democratic friends, they will point out that there is a group that is in opposition to it. The logic of the NDP, which at times can be a challenge, is that if we do not get 100% buy-in, then we should kill the project, no matter what the project is. That seems to be the New Democrats' approach to economic development. I think they owe it to Canadians to be a little more clear and transparent.

I believe we have seen political parties on all sides recognize exactly what we have been able to accomplish with regard to the Trans Mountain expansion project. It is something the Conservatives could not accomplish. Whenever you have a major project, there are divisions, even within the NDP ranks. Take a look at the premier of Alberta. What does she have to say? She is very encouraging and very positive that we finally have a national government able to get the job done. On the other hand, we have the NDP in British Columbia who are determined to kill the project, and now we have the national party, whose position is a little harder to peg, but I think in the last week or so it has become very clear that it does not see the value of pipelines.

I will tell members why it is in Canada's national best interest from the narrow perspective of my province of Manitoba. We can talk about the thousands of jobs that will be created and the endless opportunities for indigenous people and communities in all regions of our country. We will all benefit from it. However, I want to focus on something that does not get talked about very often, which is that the Province of Manitoba will spend roughly $6 billion on health care, and probably quite a bit more than that. It has been awhile since I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, but we are very dependent on equalization payments, transfer payments, and so forth. A province like Alberta, for example, contributes billions of dollars towards equalization. If Manitoba did not receive that kind of funding, we would be unable to provide the type of services we do in health care, education, and many of the social programs that are so very important and part of what I believe Manitobans and all Canadians would like to see.

When I first learned that we were acquiring the Trans Mountain expansion project, I felt very good about it. I thought this is what it means to be in government, which is to have a vision that would ultimately see Canada continuing to grow. Our middle class today will be healthier tomorrow as a direct result of this acquisition. At the end of the day, that was a commitment we made to voters back in 2015. We committed to looking at ways to build Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and to look at ways to strengthen our economy.

However, those naysayers, the New Democrats, do not understand or appreciate the importance of energy and getting our commodities to market, and would rather say no to anything and everything. The Conservatives do not appreciate the importance of our environment and respecting indigenous rights.

On this side of the House, this Prime Minister and this caucus understand the value of a government that is prepared to make tough decisions that will have a profoundly positive impact in many different ways in every region of the country. I am so proud to be part of a government that does not shy away from acting in the national best interest. That, to me, is one reason we should all be getting behind the Trans Mountain project and, specifically, this proposed legislation.

This proposed legislation would reinforce that trust by having, for example, the Canadian energy regulator ensure that on the issues the agencies are addressing, the required conditions are in fact being met. That would be a good thing. There would be more efficiency. At the end of the day, we will be better off with the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member speak. He talked about the billions and billions of dollars that my province has contributed through equalization. Of course, folks in my province are very concerned about the approach of the Liberal government and will be particularly interested in the member expressing his excitement at the possibility that his government would acquire a pipeline. He said, “this is what it means to be in government”. I wonder if the hon. member realizes how ridiculous that sounds.

Mr. Speaker, I fully disagree with the question. One can twist and take words out and try to manipulate a situation. The reality is that Stephen Harper and his government failed Albertans, the Prairies, and in fact all of Canada by not being able to get the job done. Within two and a half years, this government was able to get the job done and is prepared to generate—

I just want to point out that for the last part of what the hon. parliamentary secretary said, the microphones were not on. I was trying to hear because of the shouting. I just want to remind everyone that I am trying to hear what is being said. We are all tired. I just want to make sure that we remember what the rules are: One person speaks at a time. It is a difficult concept, but I am sure we can figure it out.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is an absolute master of hyperbole and revisionist history. When I look at the Liberal platform of 2015, I fail to see a commitment to buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion, but what I do see in there and what I clearly remember is the Prime Minister making a promise to British Columbians on August 20, 2015 that we would have a redone process. The ministerial panel was very flawed. There were so many problems with it, and that is why British Columbians and many other Canadians had problems with this process. Despite the problems of that panel, it still came out with a recommendation saying that Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal cannot proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety.

Given all the criticism of what is going on, and all the factual evidence, surely even the member for Winnipeg North can admit that the reason there is so much opposition to this is that there was a flawed process and his government fundamentally failed to repair the damage of the previous government. The Liberals failed to live up to their promise, and that is why people are protesting. They do not have faith in the current government.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. I was hoping my New Democratic friend would provide his thoughts when I made the statement, not only once or twice but on several occasions, even tonight and earlier in the week, in terms of the position of the NDP on the whole issue of pipelines. Canadians have a right to know that the NDP does not support pipelines, period. That is a fairly strong statement that I have made, and I have never had a New Democrat stand in his or her place and say that I was wrong in that assertion.

In following the debates of this chamber over the years, I have found that the New Democrats would just as soon not see one pipeline built, and yet they talk about trying to work with the energy sector and so forth. However, their actions speak louder than words. It is almost as if they oppose government intervention at times. I believe government intervention at times is a good thing. That is the reason why this government got involved. If the government had not gotten involved, there is a very good chance that the pipeline would not have gone through. Maybe that would have made the New Democrats happy. I suspect it might even have made the Conservatives happy. However, it would not have been in the best national interest. That is why this government took it seriously and we wanted to make sure the job got done.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this legislation, as the measures proposed in it would have a significant impact on the constituents in my riding. The energy sector is a central industry in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, and ensuring the industry's viability and growth going forward is crucial to my constituents. While the responsible development of our natural resources is important to my riding, it is equally as important to all Canadians.

Our country owes a lot of its prosperity to our natural resources, a fact that even the Prime Minister has admitted. In his mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, he wrote, “Throughout Canada’s history, our prosperity has been built on our natural resources.” It is a fact that he cannot and should not forget. Our development of natural resources creates jobs in Canada and economic development, and through taxes, it contributes significant revenues to the government.

The energy sector is a key natural resource sector in Canada. It creates over 800,000 Canadian jobs and represents nearly 10% of Canada's nominal GDP. Those figures are nothing to scoff at. Unfortunately, despite the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the importance of our natural resources, both his actions and inactions have come with a tremendous price tag.

The Liberal government has a terrible record when it comes to Canada's energy sector. While the members across the aisle may want to claim that this legislation is a positive step for the future of our energy sector, that is just not the case, and the Liberals simply cannot be trusted on this file.

This legislation proposes a one project, one review system for approving proposed projects. In principle this looks very positive, but a closer look at this bill quickly reveals that it is full of measures that could be taken to slow down the approval process. In actuality, the process that has been outlined is lengthier.

This perhaps comes as no surprise to many, as we have repeatedly seen the Prime Minister make promises to Canadians and then fail to deliver on them. In fact, since forming government, the Prime Minister has repeatedly failed our energy sector. The recent taxpayer purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is a great example of the Prime Minister's failure, a failure with a $4.5-billion price tag and one that puts Canadian taxpayers on the hook for billions more in costs.

I remind my colleagues that Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayer money. All it asked for was that the government provide certainty that a pipeline could be built. Even though the Liberals approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, they sat on their hands and did not champion it. Kinder Morgan was not given the certainty it asked for. Instead, it saw delay after delay after delay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a question I asked of the government back in February. The government rubber stamped the sale to Anbang Insurance, a large Chinese company that owns a number of retirement villages in British Columbia, including the Waverly Seniors Village in my riding of Chilliwack—Hope. The government approved the sale to Anbang Insurance. We warned it about that sale and it went ahead and rubber stamped it anyway. This was just after the founder of the company had been sentenced to 18 years in jail for committing fraud and the Government of China had taken over the company. Now we have a situation where the Government of China owns Anbang Insurance, which owns retirement facilities all across the country, including in my riding.

The Government of Canada approved that sale one year before this fraud trial took place and the founder of Anbang was thrown in jail for 18 years. Is the government proud of the fact that it approved a sale that has now put seniors' retirement homes in the hands of the Chinese government?

Mr. Speaker, our government has made clear its commitment to an open economy that welcomes trade and benefits all Canadians. Investment by foreign companies has long played an important role in our economy, but we acknowledge that such investment must be to Canada's net benefit.

Because investment flows into the country are important, Canada has put in place a broad framework to promote trade and investment while at the same time protecting Canadian interests.

The Investment Canada Act is the primary mechanism for reviewing foreign investments in Canada. In making this decision, as in all decisions under the ICA, the facts around the investment, the investor's plans for the Canadian business, and its undertakings were considered. Also, in conducting reviews under the ICA, relevant provincial governments and other federal departments are consulted for their views and expertise.

In this case, British Columbia's Ministry of Health was consulted and a number of third-party submissions informed the review. The review process is thorough and rigorous and not a rubber-stamp exercise, as the hon. member has suggested. The licences for Retirement Concepts were issued by the Government of British Columbia, which regulates senior care facilities in the province. B.C.'s regulatory regime imposes rigorous standards of care on all operators of residential care and assisted living facilities, regardless of their ultimate ownership.

The B.C. Health Authorities have approved the new ownership and have confirmed this. Retirement Concepts will continue to remain subject to the provincial regulatory requirements by the British Columbia Ministry of Health under its Community Care & Assisted Living Act. Does the member opposite not trust that the provincial authorities have the ability to oversee retirement residences?

With regard to ICA, Cedar Tree must report regularly to the minister on its compliance with the undertakings. Officials continue to carefully monitor Cedar Tree's compliance.